Reverse Hijacking Cases

Sample Decisions Finding Reverse Domain Hijacking

MY-LIFE.com

The Panel held that the Complainant’s bringing of the case was not primarily to harass the domain name holder. Rather, it appears to have been an aggressive attempt to obtain what was potentially a valuable name to be used for the Complainant’s new business. “This Complaint could never possibly have succeeded because the disputed domain name was registered approximately 2 years before the Complainant’s proposed business even existed, let alone before he registered a trademark.” Accordingly, the Panel found that the Respondent’s application for a finding of RNDH must be approved.

PROTO.com

“Initiating domain name dispute resolution proceedings necessarily involves putting the parties to a considerable expenditure of time and in many cases cost and the Policy must not be used unless the complainant has a reasonable and credible belief it is entitled to succeed. In particular, proceedings must not be commenced in a brash and totally unjustifiable attempt to pressure a domain name owner into releasing a legitimately held domain name that considerably pre-dates any trademark rights held by the complainant”

ALJAZEERA.com

The UDRP Rules requires a finding of both bad faith and an abuse of process in order to charge a complainant with RDNH. Supremely, the Policy is intended to provide a summary procedure for resolving what are popularly known as “cyber-squatting cases” cheaply, quickly and efficiently. It is not intended to provide a forum for resolving trademark infringement or passing off disputes. In this instance, the fact that this Complaint should never have been brought under the Policy does not mean that the Complainant is without a cause of action that could succeed elsewhere. As such, although the Complainant does not emerge from this process with any credit, it would be going too far to censure its conduct as RDNH.